"When a patient comes to me, they have established coronary heart disease. We are the last resort."

Do you know why that is, Kolvekar? It's because you're a fucking heart surgeon. When will you doctors come to terms with the fact that in your line of work you're going encounter an unusually large number of sick people? If you don't like it, may I suggest you find a different profession, preferably one which doesn't give you a platform to spread your warped ideas?

However, his views sparked a fierce backlash from the farming industry and TV chefs.

I should bloody well think so. And which TV chef would be flying the flag of freedom here?

A spokesman for Jamie Oliver...

A fucking spokesman? He's not the Pope. Surely the man can speak for himself, or has the cat got his fat tongue?

... who has championed improved nutrition in schools, said: 'He is completely against a ban on butter. He uses butter in his recipes, for example for roasting potatoes in his Christmas programme.

'He doesn't like the whole kind of food police, we must ban everything, point of view.'

You could have fooled me. Last time I saw the mockney twat he was waddling round schools showing skinny kids what they'd look like if the government didn't ban KitKats.

Surely this is the same Jamie Oliver who wanted to ban packed lunches?

The television chef Jamie Oliver has fiercely criticised parents who feed their children "junk", describing some youngsters' diets as a crime.

He said 70 per cent of packed lunches given to schoolchildren were "disgraceful" and he would like to see them banned.

Jamie Oliver says a ban on Denbighshire pupils leaving school for lunch could help promote healthy eating.

So what's the matter, Oliver, has the prohibitionist beast finally turned on you? Perhaps you thought that by cosying up to the food fascists, they might turn a blind eye to your own pleasures. Well think again, fatso. Your chickens are coming home to roost.

So who the hell is Dr. Shyam Kolvekar anyway, and how have his foul opinions found their way into the national press? Who could possibly want to ban butter?

Mr Kolvekar's comments were issued by KTB, a public relations company that works for Unilever, the maker of Flora margarine.

40 comments:

Unilever, let me see, isn't that the company that sells "Comfort" that has a toxic effect on increasing numbers of people and "Lynx" that has already killed some and triggering severe respiratory problems in many others?

Coincidentally this looks very much like how New Scientist got an Indian on the telephone to "speculate" that the Himalayan glaciers might melt - which the IPCC then transmuted into a peer reviewed scientific consensus.

I eat butter .5'6" 9st fat slob that I am.I suppose if you ate a whole pack in one go for breakfast every morning it might be bad for you.It is far nicer than that Flora stuff which is probably dyed yellow because raw margarine is white and looks like Lard.yuuck.

Exceptional entry. You totally nailed it. Great reporting. Seriously. As soon as I saw the beginning of the article I thought to myself "Bet the Margarine companies like this legislation". The end of the article was like "woah, you have to be kidding me"

To Old Slaughter: It's one thing to raise awareness of healthy eating, it's even commendable. But to BAN something requires state violence. You could say "but they are CHIIIIILDREN" but it's really an attack on parents. What if I have a perfectly healthy THIN child and want to make him a packed lunch that he enjoys? Jamie Oliver wants to BAN that?

Personally I think it's okay for a school to have a policy that they only serve healthy food in their cafeterias but to try to BAN (not just as an individual school policy but rather a government LAW) children bringing their own food in or leaving the school at lunch is fucking totalitarian.

I suppose that depends on whether you buy in to the whole 'childhood obesity epidemic' or not. In one of my old jobs I used to go to schools every day and could see no evidence of it. Amongst the kids - fed on sausage, beans and chips - there would be perhaps one fat kid per class, just as there's always been. The teachers, on the other hand, would tuck into their tupperware boxes of 'healthy' pasta every lunchtime and were all as fat as pigs. Children need more calories. They are GROWING.

Anecdotal evidence, perhaps, but if you watch Jamie Oliver's programmes on Youtube you will see him lecturing kids who are, if anything, too skinny.

Either way, you would surely defend a parent's right to give their children a packed lunch, or does the state know better there as well?

I nearly choked on my muesli this morning when I heard this twat speaking on NoNews24. First thing I thought was change your fucking job, you cunt, you abviously don't enjoy your work, do you. Still, I wonder how he spends his/your money?

Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition sketch.Out weapons are fear and guilt.

Except it's not funny.

Two months ago I was in hospital and my weight plummeted to 93kg. Today it's just over 100kg again.I put it down to sitting in the chair watching tv and surfing the net, and not taking any exercise at all.I did have butter on my toast for two days over Christmas so that's the reason I'm a lardarse according to these loonies.

Furthermore, even if we accept the terrors associated with a crappy diet, people do not die of fatness in their teens, twenties or even thirties. Certainly not at primary school age.

These fat kids are not dying. Go to any classroom and ask the kids when their last classmate died or even went to hospital as a result of his fat little diet. They will call you a twat and tell you to stop reading the newspapers. This concern is not health related at all - any damage done by the diet can be undone as an adult, unless said diet includes lead paint. The concern is politically correct bullshit that fat kids might get laughed at.

That is assuming there is an actual concern. More likely it is bansturbation under a flimsy but altogether unchallenged pretext.

There is nothing to justify food fascism applied to adults or children. Jamie Oliver might have realised that now but as TFS points out he is still a shithead.

I don't know who this "leading heart surgeon" is either but he did feature in a press release Unilever (makers of Flora "spreads") put out last year on exactly the same theme http://www.unilever.co.uk/aboutus/newsandmedia/2009/1000-pints-satfat.aspxme.

It would be interesting to tot up all these so called premature deaths from this that and the other, that the "experts" want to ban, what with Smoking, Drinking, Butter etc I am surprised anyone dies of natural causes anymore.

Drill the little fuckers. Make them eat healthy and force them to run around. IT is only for a few hours a day until they grow some pubes and have to get a job.

As for being totalitarian (!) how about this, what if a parent thinks his kid knows enough and shouldn't turn up to school at all? Children are not the exclusive property of parents. The state has a self-interest in maintaining some standards for their upbringing.For those parents with thin kids that are upset at the inability to send them off with sugary shit in a box, whine at the parents of fat bastards that fuck it up for everybody else.

If being a 'libertarian' means that somehow kids are beyond being told what is best for them then clearly I am not one.

Oh no, OldSlaughter, being Libertarian means being able to raise your kids how you damn well please without state intereference.

Mr.BanButter is clearly in favour of the latter.

Personally I think it would be brilliant to send any little bastards I may one day have to a private school with a packed lunch full of lurpak, fried sausages, chicken, lettuce and a soapy granny smith and have them make him burn it all off playing rugger or footy in the afternoon, but hey ho, that wouldn't be Mr.K's utopia.

"Children are not the exclusive property of parents."

Children are not the exclusive property of the parents to the point where the parents trust and give consent to the state to raise their children for them.

If a parent thinks their child is being taught complete horsebollocks (ie, global warming, parenting classes aged 14, etc) at a state school, it is their moral and legal right to withdraw their consent, and their children become, once again, shared property between the child themselves (Who of course has sovereignity of their own body, etc) and the parent (Who has sovereignity of their welfare, being the parent).

To round the arguement and to completely godwinise to hammer the point home unecessarily:

National Socialist, let's say, Pete, believes that childrens welfare and education are sovereign to the state, seeing as they were born into that social contract, and the parents should just shut the fuck up and feed them. When the russians come, Pete is going to line them up with rifles outside the Berlin bunker, and refuses to recognise the parents right to object, because the state has a duty of upholding its part of the bargain about raising them.

When it comes to the crunch, parents have the ultimate say. Libertarianism is about telling the state to fuck off, so you personally can choose whether you think Butter Is Best.

The American Journal of clinical nutrition is due to publish a meta-analysis, in March, concluding that there is no association between dietary saturated fat and cardiovascular disease (including stroke) and coronary artery disease. It will be interesting to see what the bansturbators make of that. I won't be holding my breath for an apology.

Since butter doesn't seem to be the cause of CAD and smoking still causes CAD/CVD, I doubt cardiac surgeons will be out of a job (though we won't need quite so many of them).

Also, coronary artery bypass grafts are largely being superceded by angioplasty, which can be performed, cardiologists and radiologists but also by cardiac surgeons.

None of this has alters the fact that he should stop being a twat and calling for a ban on butter (or anything else).

OldSlaughter - read my previous post, then tell me we are banning it for health reasons. If children are silly enough to want to get fat then this does not preclude the choice of undoing the damage when they are adults, and supposedly less silly. Your post reeks of wanting to boss them around because they are children and children should be taught respect for authority. That is another argument than this one, but FWIW you are still wrong to think it's the remit of the state.

Anonymous - they will ignore it, just like they always do when actual science has become inconvenient. If it's shoved in their faces they will probably find that the second cousin of someone on the funding body did work experience in McDonald's or something which means that everyone involved is in the pocket of big businesses, down with capitalism, etc., etc....

Hypothetically, if I decide I want to fuck my little ones because that is my bag, surely if I feel it in my best interests, how does that fit into your libertarian outlook?

So now we get some sort of judgement call between the dangers of my cock and and the dangers of crisps.

If an adult wants to fuck themselves sideways then great, that is liberty. When a kid is fucking themselves up the parents step in. When the parents are scum, the state has a role. Where that role begins and ends is a political argument. That is where voting becomes important (in a better system than ours).

You tell me which side of the authoritarian line my penis sits, is it the same side as turkey twizzlers?

Your penis sits on the side of initiating force against someone's life, liberty or property" and is thus entirely unlibertarian.

Since we regard children as being unable to make informed decisions—that is what a child effectively is—we say that they are unable to even consent to sex with you (this is the basis of statutory rape).

However, as you will also have spotted, this also means that you, as a parent (or legal guardian), are responsible for them and their wellbeing.

Which means, of course, that you can ban your kids from eating crisps.

That does not mean that the state can force you to make your children not eat crisps, however.

Apart from anything else, since the child has no legal ability to make decisions, it is you that will be fined/jailed/otherwise censured for allowing your kiddiewinks to get fat.

Can you reconcile your stance on raping kids with Pavlov's description of children having sovereignty over their own bodies and parents having sovereignty over their welfare? Because I can, with my stance on turkey twizzlers.

Furthermore, and you seem hell bent on ignoring what I have already said on this, can the harm done by your cock be reversed by dietary choices made in adulthood?

So one of these causes of damage is voluntary and reversible, the other is involuntary and irreversible. And you think the two are analogous.

This is all based on the "lipid hypothesis" that dietary fat intake increases cholesterol which increases heart disease.

It's a great and simple theory whose only minor drawback is that it's complete bollocks.

Read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.

This is why we should never let government have this kind of influence: when people or organisations get things wrong there is usually somebody else who get's them right. When government get's them wrong they coerce everyone into unhealthy behaviour.

"Apart from anything else, since the child has no legal ability to make decisions, it is you that will be fined/jailed/otherwise censured for allowing your kiddiewinks to get fat."Fair enough, bring out the handcuffs. Perhaps that might re-enforce the message of responsibility.

Much of this libertarian stuff requires natural feedback loops, systems balanced by negative outcomes. Realising that your children have not reached their potential at thirty, or even twenty, does not provide the feedback to start again and do it right. The information is too slow to affect the behaviour. Being also that the shitty parents won't have to to anything as soon as the offspring are old enough for benefits there is again a case for the state to have a role.

"Your penis sits on the side of initiating force against someone's life, liberty or property" and is thus entirely unlibertarian"

So what is turning a little one into a fat early death machine with low chance of ever scoring with somebody hot? They are kids, they have no choice, how is that not against there life...Besides, what if I don't force the penis on them but they decide it is what they love, because like cans of Rio and high fat crisps that's all they know?

My crassly and seemingly unsuccessfully made point is that the libertarian rights of parents cannot entirely extent to the way they bring up children. The children require protection beyond their own family. The reason for this is the sheer number of arseholes in the world. Watching fat wasters turn their kids into fat wasters is child abuse.

The argument I admit I did ignore, because it is bollocks, is that this 'abuse' can be undone in adulthood. Fair one, but so can a massively shoddy education (something they are probably receiving currently). Being able (according to you) to be able to overcome a disadvantage later does not really support the case for the allowance of that disadvantage as right.

I would point out that child care is one of the few subjects that will find me on this side of the debate.I would also point out that the kind of numskulls making so many of the decisions about our lives are not people whose advice I really want when it comes to raising children. However, some of the people I have seen 'raising' children need the threat of state violence, especially when peer violence doesn't exist.

As for butter, it is fine so long as you spread it wisely (thinly) on bread and don't have food drenched in it at every meal every day. As part of a balanced diet it is fine. And it has taste too.

Just as with drugs you get food abusers who abuse themselves with a crap diet or gluttony or both. That's called freedom. Just because some us freedom to make a ballooon out of themselves is no reason to abolish it!

No they don't, the overwhelming majority of children only need the support of loving parents whose only desire is to do their best by them. If there are areas where we are unsure, we are quite capable of asking for help. We all survived our parents' bad parenting (sugar sandwiches) and have adapted them to best suit our children.

In a small number of cases, society does need to intervene, but that is certainly not at the level of a child being a bit overweight. One thing is for sure, children who fall under the state's control will have their lives ruined. Parents are a natural part of chidren's lives, the state is an artificial construct. Only one of these did nature intend (and hence imbued with a desire) to look after children.

We knew when they came for the smokers no-one spoke up, that the righteous would just gain encouragement for their crusade.Then they came for the drinkers and even CAMRA(serves you right for defending the smoking ban you bearded corded bores)just lay down happy to taunt lager drinkers. Now unsurprisingly they come for the fatties.And all for the chiiiiildren.